No matter the cost

Main menu

Monthly Archives: February 2015

I am just about done with Nietzche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” which the major thrust is that conventional morality is enslaving and a way to keep superior males down and as a form of power control. He has a section near the end where he talks about women, and I found it pretty interesting given the prescience of it, and how true it has become. This is in contrast to say the oscar’s or whatever it was yesterday where I had passed a tv with it on and some femcunt was saying ‘its time we finally have wage equality for women!’ which got the typical herd cheers.

‘Woman wishes to be independent, and therefore she begins to enlighten men about “woman as she is”—THIS is one of the worst developments of the general UGLIFYING of Europe. For what must these clumsy attempts of feminine scientificality and self-exposure bring to light! Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridledness, and indiscretion concealed—study only woman’s behaviour towards children!—which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the FEAR of man.

… Enlightenment hitherto has fortunately been men’s affair, men’s gift—we remained therewith “among ourselves”; and in the end, in view of all that women write about “woman,” we may well have considerable doubt as to whether woman really DESIRES enlightenment about herself—and CAN desire it. If woman does not thereby seek a new ORNAMENT for herself—I believe ornamentation belongs to the eternally feminine?—why, then, she wishes to make herself feared: perhaps she thereby wishes to get the mastery. But she does not want truth—what does woman care for truth? From the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truth—her great art is falsehood, her chief concern is appearance and beauty. ‘

…

‘ To be mistaken in the fundamental problem of “man and woman,” to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension, to dream here perhaps of equal rights, equal training, equal claims and obligations: that is a TYPICAL sign of shallow-mindedness; and a thinker who has proved himself shallow at this dangerous spot—shallow in instinct!—may generally be regarded as suspicious, nay more, as betrayed, as discovered; he will probably prove too “short” for all fundamental questions of life, future as well as present, and will be unable to descend into ANY of the depths. ‘

(The depths he refers to here is having sufficient moral bravery of sorts to be able to throw off the shackles of conventional morality, esp. into what might be called ‘evil’)

‘The weaker sex has in no previous age been treated with so much respect by men as at present—this belongs to the tendency and fundamental taste of democracy, in the same way as disrespectfulness to old age—what wonder is it that abuse should be immediately made of this respect? They want more, they learn to make claims, the tribute of respect is at last felt to be well-nigh galling; rivalry for rights, indeed actual strife itself, would be preferred: in a word, woman is losing modesty. And let us immediately add that she is also losing taste.

She is unlearning to FEAR man: but the woman who “unlearns to fear” sacrifices her most womanly instincts. That woman should venture forward when the fear-inspiring quality in man—or more definitely, the MAN in man—is no longer either desired or fully developed, is reasonable enough and also intelligible enough; what is more difficult to understand is that precisely thereby—woman deteriorates. This is what is happening nowadays: let us not deceive ourselves about it! Wherever the industrial spirit has triumphed over the military and aristocratic spirit, woman strives for the economic and legal independence of a clerk: “woman as clerkess” is inscribed on the portal of the modern society which is in course of formation. While she thus appropriates new rights, aspires to be “master,” and inscribes “progress” of woman on her flags and banners, the very opposite realises itself with terrible obviousness: WOMAN RETROGRADES.’

Pretty interesting hearing someone rage about the proto-femenism 100+ years before it became the culture-killing, empire-ending blight it has turned into now.

Perhaps that might be a bit of a surprising title, but it is a grim reminder about ‘real life’ and how stuck and plugged in most people are. In this side of the net ideas are fairly free and they stand by their own merit and based on evidence, we accept truths no matter how much we would prefer them not to be. (Like me once believing girls wanted nice guys) The reality though is, most of our beliefs or arguments are so radical as to be alienating, and while this might not matter at say a bar, if you aren’t prudent in your words can come back to bite you.

Frequenting sites on this side, we forget how dumb nearly 95%+ of America is, where the most extreme argument they have heard is that the pay gap is a lie – which or course they accept the pay gap as true, as proof of endless male dominion over the hapless innocent female. It is stunning at times the pure quantity of repetition of lies the pay gap is shipped out in. I find it especially annoying on shows like the daily show with their short-haired femcunts sarcastically saying how glad they are to be slaves to the males and a few of them will make a ‘whole person’.

This is a low level truth. Consider race, which borders into the ‘unspeakable’ category. That as a white male I am supposedly the most privileged being in existence, some sort of near demi-god that society hands me everything on a plate, while being female or black relegates you to near untouchable class. The self-sacrificing lie so many whites have swallowed in a testament to the monumentally good propaganda, that as a white those poor blacks ‘just need a chance’ etc. To point out that it is not fair that women or blacks get bonus points for jobs is near tantamount to proclaiming you are insane. As an aside, if you are trying to convert your friends, this is a good avenue, as this tends to be less racially charged than a lot, and you can point out ‘would it be fair if you lost a job to someone just because they were a women or black?’

I’ve lost a lot of old friends in recent years since taking the pill, I see how whipped, fearful, and controlled they are. I recently made a comment over text to a friend, and instead of addressing the un-pc issue, he wrote back this insanely politically correct message phrased in such a way as if he thought our phones were tapped and if he ever got hauled in he could present it as he perfect piece of evidence of how well he toes the line. It was disgusting, and this was someone who fancies himself a free thinker.

But it got me thinking, that while his response was out of fear, it was not totally irrational, as society has become so anti-male and anti-white proclaiming anything to the contrary will result in job loss or no job, or vilification etc. I can tell you first hand I have had a LOT of interviews ask me stupid shit like ‘can a woman do the same thing as a man?’ or ‘do you have a problem working with black people?’,

well ‘you know HR bitch, I do have a problem, I have a problem they get preference points that despite my better quals I lose to them’

‘Wow what a racist, maybe we can jail him on hate crimes.’

Think about this, why is being critical of women or minorities often a ‘hate crime’ but white men can be attacked ENDLESSLY as some joke? Mind control and propaganda is what it is. I can’t stand tv at all for the repetition of portrayals of the husband or male character as bumbling and saved only by his wife, or the badass that is driven on only because the women in his life. But if you pointed that out, you’d be called bitter or misogynist.

The reality is, I have found the more homophobic, racist, aggressive, unapologetic you are, the more girls generally like you, and I’ve slammed more out as the arrogant badass than as the stoic/nice guy but your words and actions have to be careful. You have to take very good account of your surroundings and realize how most of society is against you, and that racist word, or anti-female line might be funny, but how much damage could it do? Often a lot, so remember we are superior males with truth on our side, and being superior doesn’t mean recklessly attack every battle, it means to survey carefully, pick our battles and bring everything to bear when we select our target.

This is an update to a prior post on anterior pelvic tilt / lordosis that basicly plagues every single person wheter you know it or not. You wont know it until your back gets progressively worse and you think its just ‘getting older.’ Here’s the old post: http://wp.me/p2YaVQ-j1

This is an update because I STOPPED doing certain things, and I got fucked up bad, I had a trip to the hospital – which I plan on never going again, hospitals are such a joke – and it renewed my vigor to fix this. It was so bad I was paralyzed in pain, and the xray showed the start of osteropytes on my spine. Its about a month and half later and I very rarely have pain now, I learned some from my last post.

Basicly: by sitting (which we do far too much now) does the following: it tightens your hip flexors, and your hamstrings/glutes tend to get weaker. What this causes is your tight hips/quads and weak hamstrings pulls your hips down in front, up in back and grinds your back down.

Further, conventional wisdom is: stretch hamstrings and do squats. Both of these will fuck you up even worse. Your hamstrings likely ARE tight, but its your body trying to compensate by pulling your hips back down, do not stretch these. Squats WILL work your butt, but it works your quads much much more, therefore makes the problem worse.

What you need to do:

Passively stretch hip flexors: This one is huge, you need to be in a lunge-like posistion, one foot against the wall or couch

Idealy you want something under your torso like a ball or pillows so you can passively rest here, try to go for 5 min a day.

Build up hamstrings and glutes:

The absolute best way to do these is drop the weight and start over. Exercises like single leg split squats are highly recommended:

This will target your glutes and hamstrings.

Learn to load your hamstrings!

What I mean by this, is when you bend down, do it by sticking your butt out and leaving your back straight, you will feel a tight pull on hamstrings, this is exactly what you want. Unintuitively it may seem this loads your back:

but is the right way as forces on your back are minimized and abs/hamstrings take the load.

Sleep right:

I think this one was huge for me, I used to sleep in fetal or on stomach all the time, and wake up sore. You basically need at least 1 leg completely straight at all times, so either on your back, or a modified side pose.

Pic sucks, but thats the idea. This way your back is not in a lordotic position, and your other leg is stretching your hip flexor.

Anyway lot of info here. If you suffer from ANY lower back pain, try these out and see if it helps. It will take at least 2 weeks before you see consistent improvement. If confused ask and I’ll help.

I haven’t wrote in a while, I am going to try to be more consistent and get a post up every week, so look for that.

As for Red Pill knowledge, a lot of guys think it is somewhat ‘new’ knowledge, on the contrary is in an old knowledge that is simply been lost. If you don’t read Nietzsche, you really need to, his philosophy is no-nonsense pure red pill, and this is back from the late 1800s.

Essentially, his primary argument is that modern morality is a slave morality from the jewish people and that being ‘weak, quiet, unassuming’ that these are virtues, whereas ‘strength, boldness, daring’ are bad things that should be beat out of people. Much like modern feminism.

Anyway, read some for yourself, this is from ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ and this is a really badass part (bold and breaks are mine), also notice too how similar what he is raging against sounds exactly like our feminized society:

‘After the fabric of society seems on the whole established and secured against external dangers, it is this fear of our neighbor which again creates new perspectives of moral valuation. Certain strong and dangerous instincts, such as the love of enterprise, foolhardiness, revengefulness, astuteness, rapacity, and love of power, which up till then had not only to be honoured from the point of view of general utility—under other names, of course, than those here given—but had to be fostered and cultivated (because they were perpetually required in the common danger against the common enemies), are now felt in their dangerousness to be doubly strong—when the outlets for them are lacking—and are gradually branded as immoral and given over to calumny.

The contrary instincts and inclinations now attain to moral honour, the gregarious instinct gradually draws its conclusions. How much or how little dangerousness to the community or to equality is contained in an opinion, a condition, an emotion, a disposition, or an endowment— that is now the moral perspective, here again fear is the mother of morals. It is by the loftiest and strongest instincts, when they break out passionately and carry the individual far above and beyond the average, and the low level of the gregarious conscience, that the self-reliance of the community is destroyed, its belief in itself, its backbone, as it were, breaks, consequently these very instincts will be most branded and defamed.

The lofty independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, and even the cogent reason, are felt to be dangers, everything that elevates the individual above the herd, and is a source of fear to the neighbour, is henceforth called EVIL, the tolerant, unassuming, self-adapting, self-equalizing disposition, the MEDIOCRITY of desires, attains to moral distinction and honour. Finally, under very peaceful circumstances, there is always less opportunity and necessity for training the feelings to severity and rigour, and now every form of severity, even in justice, begins to disturb the conscience, a lofty and rigorous nobleness and self-responsibility almost offends, and awakens distrust, ‘the lamb,’ and still more ‘the sheep,’ wins respect.

There is a point of diseased mellowness and effeminacy in the history of society, at which society itself takes the part of him who injures it, the part of the CRIMINAL, and does so, in fact, seriously and honestly. To punish, appears to it to be somehow unfair—it is certain that the idea of ‘punishment’ and ‘the obligation to punish’ are then painful and alarming to people. ‘Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!’—with these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger, the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at the same time, it would no longer be necessary, it WOULD NOT CONSIDER ITSELF any longer necessary!—Whoever examines the conscience of the present-day European, will always elicit the same imperative from its thousand moral folds and hidden recesses, the imperative of the timidity of the herd ‘we wish that some time or other there may be NOTHING MORE TO FEAR!’ Some time or other—the will and the way THERETO is nowadays called ‘progress’ all over Europe.’